User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick/Archive 4

Use of "minor edit"

You just made a +1051 edit to the Wikiquette alerts, but it was marked as minor. Rather than template you, I thought I'd bring it up ... that certainly is not "minor"! ♪BMWΔ 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me add: a check through your contributions show that your edits are constantly noted as "minor" when they are not. This is an improper use of the minor edit box. Please fix ASAP. ♪BMWΔ 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I had "mark all my edits as minor" checked in my preferences. I turned that off now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Hi, just a friendly reminder that while using the Wikiquette process is a good way to try to resolve disputes in an amicable and informal way, it is very important that you inform the editor(s) involved that you have done so on their talk page. Failure to do so can be considered, ironically, a breach of wikiquette. I have informed the other editor in this instance, but generally you should undertake this yourself. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Duly noted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

B.E. and layout

Glad to help. The two image suggestions I quoted at PR came from WP:MOS#Images, which is fairly short and to the point. My general rule of thumb is to aim for one image per main section in addition to the lead image, which is always in the upper right. It's OK to place the others on the left or on the right, but they shouldn't fall across the section breaks. The left-hand ones can be directly under main section heads or embedded lower in the sections, but they shouldn't be placed directly under subheads. Some editors put all their images on the right. I don't like to be quite that limited because in some cases an image will look out of the page or run out of the page (train, car, horse) if it's on the right; in those cases I try to find a place for it on the left. If you follow the MoS guidelines, you should be fine. Finetooth (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire referencing

Hello Red Hat. I have noticed that many authors mentioned in your reference list have their own Wikipedia articles. Shall I list them out in my review comments at WP:FAC, or is it simpler to wikilink their names directly in the article? I also have some low-level stuff where the author name could be more fully spelled out, like: Thomas Macaulay -> Thomas Babington Macaulay, and the book has its own WP article. How shall I proceed on those? Do you want the author names wikilinked or to use the authorlink option in the citation templates? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Ed. I really don't know, I have never been through this process before? Which do you recommend? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a lot of difference. If you don't object I'll probably just hack away on the reference list. There's a few things that involve some judgment, like adding more bibliographic info for Macaulay, including the original publication date and title. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Starwars on the BE article

I agree the best thing to do is simply remove the image and the mention of the news week article. For the time being i wouldnt bother adding another image to replace it though, seems to be enough on the article already unless we can find some free use image that symbolizes the decolonization / hand over of hong kong. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this picture from 1997 [1] , is there anyway it can be brought to wikipedia? btw nice job on the map of the BE, very sharp and clear, where did you get the map (the base)?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

File:BlankMap-World-large.png The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks but what about the middle east and carribean focused part?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did it myself using zoom, a border and a drop shadow. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks btw did you use Microsoft Paint?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that is a piece of crap. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL i agree , you used Paint net right?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Feliz año

¡Feliz año nuevo!.

Yes, I agree with your presented summary in my talk page and with the root of the problem. Nevertheless I admit that I do not distinguish well neither the connotations nor accurateness of the employment and one or another word in English language.

Only I must specify that Navarre (since 1515) and lordship of Biscay (Basque provinces, since 1200) belonged to Crown of Castille, though they both were preserving its own legislation and administration too, but, I repeat, inside the Crown of Castile. Regards Trasamundo (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

UK map

Your rather curt ending to your edit summary "next?" seems to presume there is an agreement. Shouldn't we wait for a little more input from other editors? Titch Tucker (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for coming across as curt. By "next?", I meant "next argument for showing the EU?". As you will have seen, I have just placed a straw poll there, which shows that I don't think that we have any form of agreement yet. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for presuming you intended to be curt. Life is full of opinions and it would be a dull world if we all shared the same ones. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

UK

Hi. Unfortunately I had to remove one comment you made as it was inserted in the middle of another user's comment. There was nothing wrong with your point as such, so I'm letting you know this so that you can add it at an appropriate place if you want to. Please keep in mind that we must never alter what another user has written, especially not to make it seem as if they had said something else than they did. I realise that this wasn't your intention in any way. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully you will have seen that your edit was reverted by the user who posted these comments. If in future you believe that someone has placed comments in the wrong place, for the same reasons that you quote above about not altering what someone else has written, you should move them and not outright delete them, even if you do post on their talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I considered that and I would have done so if you had signed them. I could then have moved the comments along with your signature to make it clear that the contribution was yours, so please remember to sign your posts in the future.JdeJ (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do always sign my posts - I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004 so I am fully aware of the requirement. I do not sign my posts, however, when they are in a compiled list like the one we have there, where we are collecting arguments and don't need to see who posted what. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Iberian Union

I've never even read the article, I think, and I'd rather not get involved in the dispute. This was my first edit, and with luck, you guys can agree to compromise eventually. SamEV (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ok well im making a new map that hopefully will satisfy both of us for the IU article, patience Ferrick.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you agree with me that the map is inaccurate why did you Undid my edit? Luis wiki (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not agree with you. The map that is presently on the article is accurate. The one that you favoured was far too generous regarding the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hola

Mira tengo que pedirte un favor, eso es que pares de poner imagenes encima de otras, como lo hiciste aqui [2] lo que me parecio muy rudo de tu parte y hay que tener en cuenta que esta no es tu primera vez haciendo lo dicho [3], si mis mapas no te gustan no los cambies por otros, sino preguntame primero por favor o quitalos de los articulos donde esten pero como acabo de decirte por favor no cambies mis mapas por otros archivos, mejor has tus propios mapas para que yo no gaste mi tiempo. Gracias--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These are not "your" maps, I am afraid. Once they are uploaded to Wikicommons, they are in the public domain. Secondly, if you persist in reverting articles to show your disputed maps, then you leave me no other choice than to directly modify the maps that you have uploaded. I'm seriously considering a request for comment on your actions at Wikipedia as your behaviour is totally inappropriate and smacks of being a single purpose account. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey why don't you write in spanish, i tought you said you knew it ? XD

I didn't meant they are "mine", i said if the maps i make you dont like, then feel free to make a map or revert my edits, but please dont put another map (that is not even similar) on top of it, that's rude and impolite, and if you do at least tell me about it. Secondly how are my maps disputed ? I have a very good source (not my only one tho). Go ahead and "consider" my "innapropiate" actions ok but remember i can just defend myself so easily with a bunch of insults you have thrown at me during the last 2 months, the latest one yesterday, as for being a spa account that is correct i believe, my only purpose here is to edit spanish-related articles because that is what i know most about, that's what i studied, therefore i take all responsabilities if you notify the wiki admin board. I mean imagine if i put stupid stuff on the British Empire article if i haven't studied or read about the subject, why bother? it would just mess up wikipedia.

Also look "While a new user without an edit history who immediately performs tasks that seemingly requires a post-beginner level of editing skills (such as editing non-mainspace pages, uploading images, or participating in a discussion) may be an illegitimate sock puppet, it remains possible that a new user’s contributions are alternatively the product of a disinterested third party with previous IP editing experience wishing to improve the Wikipedia project. For this reason, statements regarding motives are not generally recommended. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment."

Take in account that very closely :) Greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have one source, which runs contrary to specialist books on the subject - I have listed them at Iberian Union. Also, as someone who is knowledgeable to some degree about Portuguese colonial history, I am telling you that this is a completely unrealistic depiction of the Portuguese Empire, which (aside from Brazil) was primarily based around coastal trading posts and factories. The Portuguese just did not have the manpower to push into and control the hinterland, and struggled to defend what they had against the Dutch. The only areas that they really did move in from the coast (and then control) were in Brazil, Angola, Mozambique and modern-day Tanzania/Kenya. It looks to me as though this map you have produced from the Spanish govt website is based on a misunderstanding of one or another map that shows the coasts which the Portuguese discovered. Such a map appears in Livermore's book [4] and is reprinted in [5], but it is clearly marked as discovery, not empire. You can see it here [6], pages 53 and 52 (scroll up for 52). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin American revolutions

I would be happy to merge Latin American revolutions article into the other article. An Afd seems like the wrong forum to use. travb (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry. I have never been involved in a merge, so I assumed that one article had to be deleted. Do we just redirect? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

portuguese empire

Hi there. First of all, where you from?

Listen, I think the map you have put in the article 'portuguese empire' is very good and informative actually, but you shouldn't replace that red map we have, it took a lot of time for some people to do it. But I really like your map, but it doesn't cover all the portuguese possessions. I would really like if you put this map in the article, but on other section rather than below "portuguese empire".

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pat ferrick please discuss about your map in the PE talk page not the BE one, please be considerate . And if you are going to make a map like the one you are proposing include more territories like the one right now, show everything not 5 major forts, its about the PE not the forts. Also people who actually backed you have not really an avid interest for the PE article they are from the BE page, lets be considerate of other people's work and time.Thanks--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the map you are proposing for the PE cannot be compared to the BE , the BE was more defined (in a territorial sense), almost nothing was claimed by the UK or explored that wasnt colonized. a user in the BE page says he dislikes the current red map in the PE page because he/she doesn't understand it...then what are the captions for??!!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's strange how this thoughtfulness on your part did not apply whilst you were foisting your map onto the Spanish Empire page, isn't it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am preparing new contributions about this issue, but I must incise in several issues simultaneously. If a map has been so much time in the article, it is not profitable to embroil to discussing uselessly because of the hurry, since the inaccuracy is removed with references. I will put the post in Spanish empire, though I am not going to enter the exact limits of the Portuguese territories. Trasamundo (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

French colonial map

I reverted your edits of File:France colonial Empire10.png - The French zone of influence of incluence in China is listed at List of foreign enclaves in China and I found confirmation in "The Cambridge History of China" on page 146 (searchable via Google Books). The zone in Siam is mentioned in Entente cordiale and I confirmed in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm sure there are other mistakes on that map, but those don't appear to be among them. Kmusser (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin American Disambiguations

Excellent. Your solution works a lot better than mine-- not only is it more effective, taking the reader straight to a choice, but it has a more polite tone. I wasn't sure how to do a disclaimer without inadvertently suggesting (a) that the reader ought to "know better" or (b) that Latin America has a revolution more often than an old 45 record. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd opt for keeping the article title (wars of independence) the same and confining it to a specific list of the wars of independence that took place in the first three decades of the 19th century. T don't see any reason why the United States has to be separate from Latin America in that regard, other than American chauvinism. Washington was the same type of national hero as Bolivar, O'Higgins, Artigas, L'Ouverture, etc. There was an identifiable (and relatively short) time in world history where wars were (indeed, had to be) fought to attain independence from an understandably reluctant colonial power), and those wars are a rich part of the heritage of many nations. After that, I'd recommend a separate article for the post-1830 (and usually more peaceful) attainment of sovereignty in later years for places like Brazil, Belize, Guyana, Panama, etc.; and adding the name of that article to the dab page. Mandsford (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire

If you want the map of the empire like that (without the areas of influence) you should also take the areas of influence from the map of the spanish empire. there must be a same criteria for all the maps. regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me from what country you're from. I've already taken the claims from the spanish empire. An empire is made of possessions not of claims. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123! (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok i didn't know how to do that. Also don't you think its better to show all of the PE (claimed/explored, etc) instead of just actual possessions? the Iberian colonial empires were very old (or young as they started before anybody) and were medieval in mentality and unlike the Brit. Emp. or the French Emp. they were not very good defined until much (much) later. And just out of curiosity, did you put that year old map back again in the SE page? --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear user, I understand that you have been working a lot on this article to make it look professional,(and that you don't like too many photos;). You have reverted some of the entries stating that new subtitles didn't fit. Reading it, I object that the actual organization/titles are not so relevant at giving an overview of the Portuguese empire: "World division" is to vague, and "Iberian rivalry with the Dutch (1580-1663)" is too overrated -if you read the table of contents of Portuguese Empire history books you will see. Can you help to improve it? I see that in Encarta and other places there's a Ist to IIIrt empire divison, dominated by different territories. Is that an option? Should it be more loose on chronology ordering and be divided by continents? Hope you can help.Thank you --Uxbona (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the detailed answer. I understand your point about excessive images. And accept, of course, the relevance of "division of the world" and "Dutch rivalry" headings. I have been reading the great British empire article. Still, feel that following only the PE headings does not present -in a birdseye view- the character and reach of the PE: first, because these could have been used for the Spanish empire (which shared both issues); second because, beside colonial Africa, it does not refer a single region or territory, which define an empire; then because the "age of discovery" heading stops just before major explorations in the east and Brazil, please take notice:

• 1 Origins (1139-1415)
• 2 Age of discovery (1415-1494)
• 3 Division of the world (1494-1580)
• 4 Iberian rivalry with the Dutch (1580-1663)
• 5 Imperial decline (1663-1822)
• 6 Portuguese Africa and the overseas provinces (1822–1961)
• 7 End of the empire (1961-1999)

So, after reading the BE, and the SE, and noticing how interesting is what seems to me a more trade oriented nature of the PE (with coastal presence and trade routes) I suggest something like:

• 1 Origins (1139-1415)
• 2 First Portuguese Empire (1415-1665)
• - Atlantic explorations
• - Portugal –Castela Divide the world
• - Reaching India and Brazil
• - Expanding Eastern Trade routes

• 3 "Second Portuguese Empire" (1665-1822)
• - Succession Crisis and Iberian union
• - European rivalries
• - Dutch - Portuguese war
• - United Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil

• 4 "third Portuguese Empire" (1822-1975)
• - Portuguese Africa and the overseas provinces
• - Colonial Wars

• 5 End of the empire (1961-1999)

Hope you can give a hint on this, as there was the same problem in the pt article (which is now organised by continents). As you made a good point on the importance of "telling" a story, I look forward to your opinion. Also liked you map of the PE: I it should really be used. Sorry for the long exposition: feel free to move it to the discussion page. Thank you--Uxbona (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Good to have your opinion. I know, still there is a lot of work to be done (although being very clean and informative) particularly on the spyce commerce institutions/trading web. I hope I can help. I'm working now on the PEpt side: after your notice I realized how much absent the "dutch rivalry" issue is (this is prevalent also on Portuguese and Brazilian history articles. And also on my old history school studies). Amazing. Thank you Red Hat of Pat Ferrick once more--Uxbona (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:PE introduction

Hi again Red Hat. I know the introduction it is not the place for excessive details and dates, and tried not to. Will review that again. About your argument "Certainly, discussion of what type of political label could be ascribed to the empire is completely out of place in the intro. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)" , please explain why a political label can not be ascribed to it (and it was not a discussion, and "thalassocracy" is arguably a political label- altough everything is political). If you write about a monarchy, a democracy or a communist state you certainly can or should state that from the start, shouldn't you? I used this definition to help with the common remarks that the Portuguese Empire range and power didn't really matched a large territorial/land basis. Do you have any suggestion? It would be very helpful. Thanks.--Uxbona (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Yes, I would have no problem removing the “could”. Although being a difficult word, it could be easily dig up with a link, considering:

• Merriam-webster entry (thal•as•soc•ra•cy , noun; from thalassa + -kratia –cracy; maritime supremacy);
• Wikipedia thalassocracy, even with the safeguard that “It is necessary to distinguish this traditional sense of thalassocracy from an "empire", where the state's territories, though possibly linked principally or solely by the sea lanes, generally extend into mainland interiors" (under such a definition, empires such as the British Empire were not thalassocracies, which is disputable, as it is often stated as starting as one)
• better, Enciclopaedia Britannica - Portugal’s seaborne empire: "Territorially, theirs was scarcely an empire; it was a commercial operation based on possession of fortifications and posts strategically situated for trade."
• and almost forgot King Manuel I's title: king of Portugal and the Algarves of either side of the sea in Africa, Lord of Guinea and of Conquest, Navigation and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia and India, ...

So, I would have no problem in removing the “could”. But since this is not an universal closed concept, would go with just a more accurate description of PE nature – naval power over Atlantic and Indian oceans, supported by a chain of coastal forts and factories. A referenced note stating that it qualified as a thalassocracy would be perfect. Please tell me what do you think (I would change accordingly the Portuguese article)--Uxbona (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

• Boxer, Charles Ralph "Four centuries of Portuguese expansion, 1415-1825: a succinct survey", p.95, “The old Portuguese colonial empire was essentially a thalassocracy”
• Stanley G. Payne, A history of Spain and Portugal‎, 1973 - ISBN0299062805 All over refered to Portugal as a Thalassocracy: chapter [232] The Thalassocracy: “The golden age of the spice trade from the Portuguese thalassocracy was the three decades 1510-1540….”
• Pirenne, Jacques, "The tides of history, Volume 2", p.384, Dutton, 1962 - entire chapter named Portuguese Thalassocracy;
• Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783
• Kenneth Maxwell , The Making of Portuguese Democracy, 1997 (Political Science) - Page 11 “By the sixteenth century, Portugal's thalassocracy had made it one of Europe's richest nations, and the kingdom enjoyed a period of commercial and cultural ...”
• Rasul Bux Rais, The Indian Ocean and the superpowers: economic, political, and ... – “The elimination of local resistance and the establishment of Portugal's ... that their 16th century thalassocracy was always and everywhere effective. ...”

A leading PE expert in PE, an American famous navy officer, an history book, a Frenchman… those are my silly references. There are others, but those should be enough to address any stubborn dismiss of exactitude. On behalf of encyclopedic knowledge - and not, as I first feared, of proselytism - I think it does make a difference, don't you?--Uxbona (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough for me too. And yes, I do agree that these refs refer to the era before Portuguese decline (of course), and would place it from first sea trade monopoly, around 1443, to 1532 first colonizing effort in interior Brazil. --Uxbona (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

Hello Red Hat. I reverted User:Historian19's edits because he changed almost all sections' images of the article about Portugal. I stated that on the edit summary and even restored his text in the section "Government and politics". Meanwhile, during the afternoon, the user was blocked by an administrator because he doesn't behave properly in Wikipedia. Miguel in Portugal (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Donde vivo

"BTW why do you ask where I'm from? In my experience editors who care about places of origin tend to misuse the information: either to argue that someone who is not from "country X" is not qualified to edit an article relating to "country X", or that they have some kind of bias against "country X" if they are not from "country X"."

• I hope that applies to me too.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I think I know why you ask me, do you really think that?!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Misiones Orientales

To follow up my earlier comment on your map, it seems that the Misiones Orientales have been systematically portrayed as part of Rio Grande o Sul in the various colonial-era maps, when in fact they were only incorporated into the Empire post-independence. Obviously the Platine boundaries were extremely volatile in the 18th century, with wars occuring in the 1750s, 1770s, and 1800s, but I'm not aware of the region ever being annexed to Brasil before 1828. You may know who to approach with this. Cheers, Albrecht (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be doing much good, but I'll try stick around a little while. I don't understand why mapmakers refuse to illustrate specific periods, regions, or themes (economy, subdivisions, etc.). Hell, they could include Cambodia if they wished in a map titled "Spanish conquests and explorations in the East Indies, 1520-1643 (or whatever)." Likewise, no one would object to indicating the Pacific coast claims on a map illustrating, say, the northern expansion of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, 1748-1819—after all, many of the huge expanses of pink on the British map (i.e. the Canadian Arctic) were largely of the same fictitious order as Spain's Pacific claims: a few symbolic explorations backed by a period of naval preponderance. Albrecht (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WAR OF JENKINS EAR

indecisive? who rennouced to the asiento¿? the british or the spanish? who failed in the massive attack? the british or the spanish? who had territorial ambitions? the british or the spanish? what language is spoken in that land thanks to the british failed attack, spanish or english?

I've checked out too your sources and where is the mention to the battle of Cartagena de Indias and the heavy casualties suffered? Cosialscastells (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like someone is engaging in original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the mention in your sources to the battle of cartagena the indias and the heavy massive casualties suffered? why i can't find nothing about blas de lezo too?Are you trying to avoid the truth? if yes let me know =)Cosialscastells (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. It would seem we've upset some people. I have some raving nonsense on my talk page too. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - very persistent. I tried getting it temporarily protected, but it didn't meet the threshold. :( Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Empire edits

Hello, I've noticed your reversing my edits on the British Empire page, so just wanted to explain myself. On the Zanzibar sentence, I thought that linking to the main article on the topic would be enough for a reference. It did occur to me at the time that I had no external source, but the sentence was short and uncontroversial, so I thought that a link to the main article on the Zanzibar revolution would be enough.

As for Diego Garcia, the depopulation was part of the Cold War but also the island was an acquisition of the British Empire; there's nothing mutually exclusive about the two categories. There are sentences in the "Legacy" section about how Mauritius claims British Indian Ocean Territory for itself, and it seems linked that Diego Garcia has been a controversial issue within Britain itself (or at least within the legal community in Britain). I would count that as part of the empire's legacy: it's one of the few islands that Britain still possesses.

Regards. Epa101 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The British Empire is a featured article, and it went through a rigorous review to get there with strict use of references. My reason for reverting your edits was that you didn't produce any reliable sources reaching the same conclusion that you did that these are legacies of the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For Diego Garcia, my references were two court cases from Britain. I'd hope that they'd count as reliable sources that the island's depopulation has been controversial in Britain. It's true that I didn't have a resource for Zanzibar; I'll look for one. Epa101 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am not disputing that the depopulation was controversial: I know that it was and read the press coverage. I am disputing (or at least requesting a reference for) the claim that it was a legacy of the empire. This is a strong claim, and needs a reference reaching the same conclusion to show that it is not synthesis on your part. Personally, I disagree that it was a legacy of the empire. It was a legacy of the Cold War. Same applies to Zanzibar: you need to show that reliable sources also reach the same conclusion that the events there were a legacy of the Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Empire

Can you at least help me or try to fix the 'bad parts' instead of just deleting it? it took me a while to write them. Thanks.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you are even changing the introduction. What was wrong with it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It needed more primary info and some parts were wrong such as the notion of Spain being identified as a unified nation state in the 15th century when in fact only the political framework was being created and it would only be with the Bourbons that something close to the Spain we know today would emerge, also the 18th century was skipped, added some parts of population and size of the empire, and small adds just to try to make it better but i still dont see how this is a good arguement for reverting my edits (which I would try to fix now)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many problems with the article. The introduction is the least of them, yet you are now adding it to the list by injecting very poorly worded prose. By the way, spending a lot of time making these edits is not a case for them remaining. As it says underneath the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, the article is dead, and Im trying to fix it from the top to bottom, help would be good. I understand the prose may not be very good but the info/facts are very good and somewhat necessary. Also why not link centuries?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If your work on the introduction is anything to go by, and your reaction this evening when I removed some very poor edits, I will not have the energy or time to fight with you as you go through and rewrite this article. On the subject of centuries, you are referring to the British Empire article. That is a featured article, which means it went through a thorough review against Wikipedia's manual of style. No other century is linked in the article, so do you really think it is the right thing to add two new century links, inconsistent with the rest of the article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

BE

Thanks. I had noticed and was just reading up on the 2006 debate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish empire map

Hello, I am engaged now with the discussion over the Patagonia [7], and I cannot pay attention to the legends and the labels (I have not forgotten this post yet [8]), both Pfly as you have done very interesting contributions and I want to do a reflections, and in addition to that, I need orientation for depict the labels. Dunkedun has put in the map WP:OR and still, I do not know exactly where it is WP:OR, could you intervene and contribute your vision about wp:or, wp:v and wp:syn? It looks like to me a nonsense to place that template without justifying where the inaccuracies are and without providing sources for supporting it, when I have provided sources. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasamundo (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"not including territories of the Spanish monarchy that was not ruled by the spaniards". Common, you can improve , but why delete it?--Dunkedun (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not including territories of the Spanish monarchy that was not ruled by the spaniards is obvious, which is the sense of including territories that they were never governed in the Spanish empire?

I do not know if he is EHT but probably the caption would become clearer if the map was entitled somewhat: The areas of the world that at one time were territories of the Spanish Empire. Claims are not shown/depicted. Trasamundo (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have finally finished the map of the Spanish empire, and specially, for the depiction of the territories of the kingdom of Portugal between 1580-1640 I have used a series of sources, which gradually I will add little by little in the talk page of the Iberian union, when I could organize them and depends on my availability of Internet this Easter. There is also another version of the image in .svg in order to do easier changes of colors, labels... Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, recently I have seen the contributions of a anonymous user who has been placing templates to delete a lot of maps of empires, and among them, I have seen certain maps of the SE that certain vandals put in the article when the page is unprotected, which I communicate to you, in case of you wanted to put some commentary in the above mentioned maps. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Teacher

No Im not "the Teacher" and thank you for the welcome.--Dunkedun (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You see dummy, I was never a sockpuppet.Check again perhaps.See you again in a couple of weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cosialscastells/Archive --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also since when am I "a self professed "teacher" of European history"??? I never said I'm a TEACHER nor any kind of professor or historian (unlike you : "amateur historian" lol), so keep your stuff to yourself and be nice. Also making fun of people because English (a very harsh and unappealing language by the way) is not their first language and they might accidentally misspell something sometimes, is not okay. Let me see you handle 3+ languages and then you should rudely make fun of people because of their languages like you do now.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you chose your user name, not me. The fact that more than one user has poked fun at the irony of that choice speaks for itself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells

Hello TRHoPF. Can you please comment as to where arbcom sanction/ban evasion comes into play here, or possibly acknowledge that code letter e is what you meant? Thanks. Synergy 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

Hi,

Please see Talk:British Empire. Cheers, Slac speak up! 02:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese territories

Thank you for the response. Below I show you the sources that indicate that there was a small Portuguese settlement in St Helena. Honestly I do not know any more. Regards

• [9] [10]: The Portuguese mariners preserved the secret of the existence of St Helena from other nations until 1588, when it was discovered by Capt. Cavendish, on his return from a circumnavigating voyage. He gives the state of the island very circumstantially, from which it appears, that the Portuguese had built a town and a church: he found abundance of goats, pigs, and poultry, with game, wild fowl, and various kinds of fruits and vegetables. The settlement was afterwards frequently visited by English, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese ships: the salubrity of air and the abundance of fresh provisions invigorating their exhausted crews.

• [11]: The government now began to perceive that the island might make a valuable halting place for ships going from Portugal to India; by which they might have a supply of water and fresh provisions, &c: they therefore dismissed Lopez, and made the island a government station. They succeeded in concealing the situation of St Helena from other countries for many years; but in 1588 Cavendish visited it in his return from his voyage round the world. It was soon after visited by the Spaniard and the Dutch who wantonly destroyed the produce of the island. As the Portuguese gradually acquired settlements on the western coast of Africa they left St Helena in a desolate condition.

• [12]: Early in the 17th century the Portuguese abandoned their little settlement.

Trasamundo (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Really I am confused, on the one hand we have that St Helena was a Portuguese halting place, but on the other hand it seems that it was a government station, with town and to church, and therefore a territory under Portuguese sovereignty and administration. I really don't know what to think, might you clarify it?. Anyhow I already have prepared the maps without St. Helena. Trasamundo (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Tibet Freedom fighter

Newly created, interests in British and Portuguese Empires? Seems a bit suspicious to me. --Snowded (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snowded. There is definitely some funny business going on here today. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No joke

No it wasn't a joke and we both know I read it exactly as you meant it. Justin talk 21:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

What I resent and find frustrating is that rather than finding a way forwards all I have seen is negative criticism and what appears to be criticism by speculation. Not one person has actually said what was wrong with what was proposed or suggested an appropriate alternative. And being brutally frank about it, I am still royally pissed about your Rottweiler remark. You forget we're both half-Spanish, other people might not get it but I certainly do. Justin talk 23:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

It's certainly... interesting. Bastin 01:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondered...

Hello there! I'm currently doing something of a much needed improvement drive to the British people article. It's been an interesting little project for me (my only suprise is that it hasn't been improved and cherished before now), and though its still work-in-progress, I hope to unravel a bit about the origins and reasons for British national identity, as well as provide somewhere which explains the resistance to it (for nationalist Scots, Irish etc).

That all said, I've come to the point in my research where the British Empire is shaping British identity. I know you took the British Empire article to FA (which I - and any other self respecting editor - has to respect!), so I wondered...... do you have any interesting and reputable quotes on how British people were view by foreign/colonial populations? I imagine something like "the British were consisdered by the Indians to be a curious, dour, but polite race..." exists somewhere???? Hope you can help. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the swift response.

All good points you make, and I totally agree. I suppose I just suspected that some reputable author would have published a succinct but encompassing comment at some point on how the British people were percieved/recieved by the population of the Empire. I've done a quick search through Google Books and most of what I've seen relates to how the British Rule/State was recieved (broadly negatively, of course). Indians were just an example.

Not to worry. I'll try to track something down at a later date - it was just a thought. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"British Isles"

According to the British Isles article, most definitions do not include the Channel Islands and Isle of Man as part of what some people call the British Isles; only "some" definitions subscribe to that view. Therefore if you are including them in your definition of the "British Isles" your definition will at least need clarification. The very use of that term to imply rule over all of Ireland is inappropriate to begin with, particularly when UK and (insert number) number of overseas territories would be far more precise. Dunlavin Green (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup - there is no need to mention either BI or UK. --Snowded (talk) 19

01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RedHat, we have had our differences but also reached agreement and I've done my share of clearing up vandalism on the British Empire site. We now have a minor issue within the article and the normal forces are coming into play. Have a look at the user pages and edit histories of those who want BI kept in this article. I've resisted (as can also be shown) those who want to remove BI as a name, rename the article etc. etc. I would hope you and other reasonable editors would do the same the other way round. --Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So it goes from the BE article. Then what? DG or whoever finds the next article that mentions it, the usual suspects descend on it and once again, an alternative wording is found. End result: BI has been removed from Wikipedia without there ever having been a community-wide policy to stop using it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

and on several articles its appropriate to retain it (and I have defended that). Here it is is inappropriate --Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you articulate your criteria for appropriateness, and show me articles where you have argued for its retention? (I don't simply mean arguing that the BI article itself should not be remained). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Any geographical article, and any political article before the turn of the last century, or a reference to that period in another article. So on the British Empire its not an appropriate turn for a political question (who owns what) in the current day. There is a massive exchange on its use on the archives where you can see the various illustrations and examples that were debated. I remember a couple of near edit wars when I reverted to British Isles but would have to spend an hour or so tracking through history to find them. --Snowded ^TALK 12:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is an strange set of rules with which I do not agree. Even when writing about historical events, we use modern day terminology. The term "British Empire" was originally used in the 16th C not to refer to overseas possessions but to the home isles. Yet we use the "modern" meaning of the term, even when describing events in the 16th C. Also, if the term is good enough for a 2008 House of Commons report, it's good enough for a 2009 Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the term was used in a House of Commons report, I have no idea of the context but there is nothing wrong with the term per se in the right context. If you want a geographical term its fine. In the context of the British Empire article its use is superfluous and misleading. --Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is tiresome. I should copy some standard replies to Notepad and paste them back onto the talk page every time they repeat an argument we (mostly you - props for some well though-out answers) previously refuted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Little short of disruptive. In fact it worried me enough that I was going to chip in and object, but it appears to have been put on hold due to other activities... Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

BI

I would have said half an hour on past experience, but it got reverted before I got a chance to bet. :( Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What is happening to my edits?

(Ctrl-click)"> What the hell is that? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Do you know what it is? I only copy-pasted. Perhaps I ought to do it with the source text, rather than revision text. I ought to revert myself and try it instead. Sorry. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Declarations of War in WW2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_II_(1939) states Australia and NZ declared war the same time as UK. signed "DMP" - sorry haven't got a wikipedia sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.2.83 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand's PM first consulted his cabinet before joining the UK's declaration. It was not "simultaneous". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, well I'll do a little more research. Your statement disagrees with most wikipedia pages, every other website, and every text book I've ever read, but maybe you are right. They all state or imply consultation before the British ultimatum, and many erroneously claim the NZ ultimatum became active before the UK because of time zone mix-ups, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.2.83 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to comment where this leaves us? From NZ History net, an "official NZ Govt site". "In contrast to its entry into the First World War, New Zealand acted in its own right by formally declaring war on Germany on 3 September (unlike Australia, which held that the King's declaration, as in 1914, automatically extended to all his Dominions).

Officially, New Zealand's declaration of war was simultaneous with Britain's – as it was held to exist from the expiry of the British government's ultimatum to Germany to withdraw from Poland (9.30 p.m. New Zealand standard time, 11 a.m. British summer time). In fact, ministers and senior officials waited on formal advice of the expiry of the ultimatum, and Britain's declaration of war on Germany, before taking any action. It was not until 11.30 p.m. that the acting Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, issued a statement confirming that New Zealand was at war:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.2.83 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Feeding

It's fun though ... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You both realize that what you're doing is trolling? I'm sure you both wish to be rid of me. Fine, keep your bipolar entrenchment ongoing for as long as you can deceive the rest of Wikipedia, that you intend to resolve the problem. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BI-Taskforce

I've a cunning plan. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wild Idea

Would you accept Britain, rather than British Isles? --Snowded ^TALK 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't, because the Crown Dependencies are technically not part of Britain/UK. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I tried --Snowded ^TALK 17:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"A" for effort. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Many apologies....

but I didn't want to confuse whomever asked the question. It didn't appear to be an obvious joke, at least to me. Again, many apologies from Malpass93 (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

Jumpin' Junipers, I'm gonna delete that article; ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems we've a persistant vandal, at the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it unacceptable to ask a question? Let him answer it.81.155.156.42 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring in violation of an editing restriction and edit notice. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

I would self revert if I were you. THe ruling is after a revert there is to be NO further reversion until consensus is reached. SheffeldSteel is being firm in his interpretation. Check out my clarification on his talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I was too late with the warning --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to support the request below, RedHat has a pretty impressive record as a editor. I've had lots of disputes with him, but he has always followed policy and was I am pretty sure unaware of the 1RR restriction--Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Message to SheffieldSteel

I was not edit warring, my edit was made in good faith. I was honestly trying to restore what I thought was consensus. I appeal to SheffieldSteel to lift my block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been appealed. How does it feel? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the stain on your block log, Hat. In future, I'll be sure to warn editors to ensure that they are aware of this restriction. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

- British Empire Map 1919 -

I have just one minor modification I would like to suggest for this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BritishEmpire1919.png I've noticed that Jordan and Israel are shown separately as mandates and the West Bank is greyed out. Now, Israel/Palestine and Jordan were around that time administered jointly and there was no difference between them, being called the British Mandate of Palestine. However, exactly in 1919 Britain had not yet been entrusted with the mandate, that only happened a little later on, in 1922, so the whole area should be greyed out. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine ). Otherwise, fantastic work, it takes quite a bit of research and work to put together such a map. 144.173.212.9 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)